Parrabolics on a 86"

[Lost Landy]

Hi all just asking if parrabolic springs would be the go on my newly aquired 86" series 1? as the leaf springs under the 86" are rusted solid. I have never owned a Landy with them and would be vey thankfull for any info or advise about them.
Are the parrabolics prone to snapping leaves more so then the stand multi leaf springs?
Does the vehicle handle any worse or better with parrabolics fitted?
Iam going to keep all the 2A running gear ie motor,g/box, diffs. as I want a good useable daily driver as well as to go away on the odd trip when the Landy is back on the road.
Cheers Brendon.

[JDNSW]

I believe that the spring dimensions are the same from the 86 right through to the end of S3, so they should fit.

The major advantage of the parabolic springs is that the lack of interleaf friction gives a much better ride for the same spring rate. There have been some reports of broken leaves, which obviously are more serious when you only have two or three leaves, but they do not seem to be more common and also, as you would expect, are more common with the cheaper ones.

But in most cases the improvement seen is going from absolutely stuffed conventional springs to new parabolics, and the difference between the new parabolics and new conventional springs is probably much less. One problem with new conventional springs is that the thickness of spring steel used in the originals is no longer available, and any new (but not new old stock if you can find any) will have thicker leaves and hence will not perform the same as the originals. For this reason, if my springs needed to be replaced, I would be looking seriously at parabolics.

However, how bad are your existing springs? Many "rusted solid" springs respond well to being removed from the vehicle, disassembled, wirebrushed, painted and reassembled with lubricant between the leaves. And it will be a whole lot cheaper! (Cost - a few hours work, new bushes, new centrebolt, paint, graphite grease, a few wire wheels, and possibly new U-bolts and shacklepins.)

John

[alan48]

Hi,
I have recently fitted a set of Rocky Mt parabolics to my 1958 S1 88" soft top along with the correct shocks but now the ride is terrible--in fact the car is unuseable really. I also know some others have had similar issues needing to carry a lot of weight in the rear to soften the ride, yet others say they are great. I have carried two milk crates of bricks in the rear and then it is almost ok--but must solve this problem.

Have others had this problem and if so how was it solved--otherwise it will have to be back to normal springs but who has any good soft riding ones--the front seems fine, but the rear (2 leaf set only) is out of this world!

There is nothing wrong re the idea of parabolics and Santana used them for years instead of coils but maybe my car is too light for them. I have them on a S1 109 and they are great, likewise on my lightweight.
Alan

[101RRS]

I agree with Alan - experiences seem to be hit and miss - often "heavy duty rears" and included which are really not needed for an 86/88. fronts are usually OK but it is the rears that are problematic - lots of discussion with the supplier before ordering is needed to ensure what you get is what you need.

Brand names seem to be better than others.

Garry

[Cliffy]

Had em on one of my s3 88's
They were awesome!
Can't comment on the loaded bit as I can't remember carrying anything heavy.
Used to hit speed humps a a speed that would have had you thrown over the screen with ellipticals and it was almost like coils!

[andy_d110]

I had 2 leaf RM parabolics front and rear on my 2a, worked really well. I swapped them with a mate who has now fitted them to his 1954 86", a lot smoother ride either loaded or unloaded. Wouldn't go back to standard leaf springs...

Of course they should be fitted with the recommended shocks to gain the full potential.

[incisor]

love mine but i would really love a 3 leaf set on the back instead of the 2 leaf set that struggle with the loads i push at times.

[Brad110]

I am about to do the same and was told that as my front originals are fine that I should just do the rear.

It was then stated that they only really have an effect on the rear?

Is this sound advice from ones experience?

[incisor]

it affects both in my experience

[numpty]

Plus from my experience with parabolics on a Stage 1, they raise the height of the vehicle. So unless you want a jacked up rear end, fitting to both front and rear is advisable.

[Defender Mike]

I found these Parabolics
For Land Rover Series, Heystee - Automotive Components - Online Store (http://www.heystee-automotive.com/onlineshop/catalog/index.php?cPath=24_45)

After asking around Perth they tell me no ones makes them in Australia to fit Landrover S 1. This D level set for the 109 is supposed to be able to carry a full load has 4 springs on the rear . Price is ok except freight will be expensive. Does anyone now if you can them here in OZ .
Mike

[Cliffy]

Series II should fit if not a 80"

[andy_d110]

I got my Rocky Mountain ones from Discovery Autos in Wangara.

[ian4002000]

Ive got parabolics on the front of my 11a 6 cylinder and they are great. They seem as smooth as coils to me.

[Defender Mike]

I got my Rocky Mountain ones from Discovery Autos in Wangara.

I know the guys up there my work shed used to be behind their building. Can you remember how much they were?

[Cliffy]

Did you try Rovercraft and West Coast Rover